Movers & shakers
Australia’s Right To Know campaign
Inaugural statement (April 2007)
We have joined together because we are deeply troubled by the state of free speech in Australia.
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental pillars of a free and open society. It is as important as parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in guaranteeing the freedom and rights of all Australians.
Australians cherish the freedom to tell it like it is. Our freedom to express an opinion, honestly and openly, is under threat.
Equally, our ability to report to Australians facts about how they are governed and how our courts are administering justice is being severely hampered.
Australia now lags well behind most major democracies. The latest worldwide press freedom index, compiled by the independent organisation Reporters Without Borders, ranks Australia 35th – equal with Bulgaria and behind nations such as Bolivia (16th) and South Korea (31st).
This is not a party political issue. All Australian governments – federal and state – and all the opposition parties need to embrace urgent reform to redress the erosion of free speech in this country.
Our first priority is to commission a proper independent study of threats to free speech and expression in this country.
We will make this report widely available to the Australian public, who we believe are largely unaware of how much they are not allowed to know.
We will consult with state and federal governments, the judiciary and our public service, and urge them to be more forthcoming with information that is relevant and important to the public they serve.
We believe the Australian people should be free to make up their own minds about the processes and decisions that affect them.
Many of the laws and restrictions imposed on the public’s right to know do not look sinister in isolation. But together they form a very worrying situation for this country.
A national audit of the state of free speech in Australia will be broad. Among the issues we want to explore are:
the effectiveness of freedom of information laws – given that freedom of information is at risk of becoming an oxymoron
the principles of open justice and the public’s right to know how courts operate
the tendency by courts to restrict public access using broad suppression orders
the level of transparency in criminal and family law casesthe risks that journalists and whistleblowers face jail even though they are acting in the public interest
the impact of new sedition laws on freedom of expression in media reporting and the performing arts
the risk that Australians can be detained without charge and reporting of such occurrences is illegal
whether defamation laws achieve the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect the reputation of individuals (even allowing for recent welcome reforms that created much greater uniformity across the country)
the need for suppression, contempt and other state based restrictions to be reformed and made uniform across the country.
At the same time, we believe strongly that freedom comes with responsibility. We do not seek permission to publish or broadcast without proper respect for national secrecy or personal privacy, especially when the public interest is not served by the release of information.
All we ask is for a commitment to move towards similar levels of freedom enjoyed by the peoples and media of such countries as Ireland (joint No.1 ranking), Canada (16th), or New Zealand (19th).
Australians deserve to be trusted with information in the same way as citizens of other democracies.
The state of free speech in Australia
Australian laws now contain more than 500 separate prohibitions and restrictions on what the public is allowed to know. Some vary from state to state, creating huge barriers to accurate and full reporting.
In Victoria, two journalists are facing jail for refusing to reveal their source on a story which embarrassed the government by exposing that war veterans were being short-changed on their benefits.
A public servant who the government believed had leaked information to a newspaper about serious lapses in airport security has been convicted for his crime. The story led to a $22 million upgrade of airport security.
In Sydney, one newsroom has been raided twice in the past year by federal agents trying to identify the source of an official leak to a journalist. Raids such as this were almost unheard of a decade ago.
A newspaper’s request under FoI for the picture of a convicted criminal was denied by police in Victoria on grounds of privacy – because the man was dead and could not give his permission.
A Victorian court issued an order to stop a newspaper identifying a major public figure accused of fraudulent company dealings. Then it imposed another order to stop the paper saying it had been gagged.
A major newspaper was refused an auditor’s report on suspected rorts of Commonwealth MPs’ travel expenses. The paper appealed to a tribunal and won, but then the government tried to charge $1 million in fees to hand over the report. The paper could not afford it.
Courts are routinely suppressing information, often on spurious grounds. A decade ago, there were fewer than 100 court suppression order on the media. Now, there are more than 1000 at any one time.
A major newspaper has repeatedly attempted to get an Education Dept report on violent incidents in schools. The paper has spent more than $40,000 in legal fees so far and it still can’t get a full, detailed report.
Information subject to suppression orders from courts has included bans on naming defendants because they are public figures and “may be embarrassed,” allowing private justice for their crimes.
A newspaper has been denied permission to give its readers a list of the names of NSW restaurants fined by councils for breaching food health regulations.
Police have refused under Freedom of Information to release a list of the pubs with the highest numbers of alcohol-related incidents, including assault and robbery.
Federal prosecutors have a policy of tracking down and prosecuting any public servant found to have leaked official information, even when it is dramatically in the public interest that the information is known.
If the parents of a missing child involved in Family Court proceedings seek the media’s help to find their child, they or the media have to go to court for permission to publish the child’s picture.
The Federal Government has finally agreed release its 18-month-old polls into what the public think of its WorkChoices law – but not until after the election.
The NSW Government will not release information under FoI on how much water it allows the Lake Cowal gold mine to take from the Murray-Darling aquifer.
A newspaper has lost its High Court appeal to get the government to release figures on how much extra tax workers have to pay when they get a pay rise. The case cost the paper $500,000.
Australians were banned under NSW law from knowing the identity of the juvenile convicted of burning the Australian flag at the Cronulla riots – despite his invitation by the RSL to carry the flag on an Anzac Day march, and his participation in a highly-publicised Kokoda track walk.
The Federal Government claimed it was “not in the public interest” to release information on the first home owners’ scheme, including the number of wealthy people fraudulently claiming the $7000 grants under the scheme. A newspaper took the case to the High Court and lost.
It has become almost impossible to get balanced reports from war zones as it has been in the past. Our military will cooperate only with embedded journalists to ensure only the official line is reported.
John Hartigan Chairman and Chief Executive, News Limited
David Kirk Chief Executive Officer, Fairfax Media
Mark Scott Managing Director, ABC
David Leckie CEO Network Seven and Chairman of Free TV Australia
Shaun Brown Managing Director, SBS
Michael Anderson CEO Austereo and Chairman, Commercial Radio Australia
Clive Marshall CEO, AAP
Angelos Frangopoulos CEO, Sky News
 Return
to top
See
our media trends archive for earlier stories. See our Benton
index for USA media stories.
Use this tool to search
our site or the web.
|
